73. In all the circumstances outlined above the fair- minded and informed observer would be hard- pressed to consider that such recommendations, in respect of purported “needy and deserving persons”, would be a matter of such significance as to require disclosure in a matter not involving the HDC. That is because such observer would be unlikely to perceive why, in those circumstances, any such recommendations would stand a greater chance of success under a new government, as opposed to one under which recommendations had been successful. On the evidence there would be no reason for any communications with any party post August 2015 as according to the August internal HDC email the recommendations were being processed. There is also no evidence of any such communication with the executive, (apart from the alleged WhatsApp message to the PM discussed previously). The fairminded and informed observer would not expect that at the date of the hearing of the election petition appeals that there would be any communications to disclose. 74. Guidelines have been established for judicial conduct. It was alleged that recommendations of persons for HDC housing transgressed those guidelines. We are not required to make a determination on that allegation. We are required to consider that issue only in the context of the test for apparent bias. 75. Even if the fair- minded and informed observer maintained any lingering perception of the possibility of post-election follow up communications with the HDC subsequent to the admitted recommendations, a logical connection has not been convincingly articulated between any such communications and a party before the court, or the outcome of litigation in favour of one or the other. 41